TrueBlueGED

Really? I have a couple of friends with it and they haven't complained at all.

Pretty sure Sling is still the cheapest option. The $25 version has the NBC networks. Not sure if it has USA though.

One fun secondary effect of hiring an "analytics guy" would be seeing you lose your mind. Hey, at least I'm honest :p

They should fire the new guy for incompetence. There are, of course, perfectly sound arguments for Lombardi. Roy, on the other hand...

I blame it all on Brian Kelly! Honestly, I think Trubisky is the only one with a reasonably high floor. I just also think his ceiling is the lowest. And that's the rub with this class, and why most fans hate it: there's no total package. Each one has attractive qualities, but you don't look at any of them and say "Hey, there's no real weakness here." Also why Cleveland wants to take one at 12 or move up, but doesn't want to do it at #1. I know the risk, but I think one or two of these guys is gonna turn out to be really good, and I'd like the Bills to be one of the teams that tries to pick the right one.

LeBrun is a real loss, but I always thought Burnside provided very little, if any, value.

You're a horrible person.

I defied WC and answered in the other thread. He can't keep me down! Kizer > Mahomes > Watson > Trubisky.

Kizer. I'd put Mahomes > Watson > Trubisky as the next three. Happy with any of the four at 10. There's no surefire superstar, but I think each has a lot to like and a couple have the potential to hit it big. This is a better class than last year when guys went 1-2.

I legitimately like this QB class.

Au contraire! I'd not have spent on bringing in Mike Tolbert, as the Bills did. Use that money on the 2nd round tender to Gillislee. I'd have franchised Gilmore, let Taylor walk, and taken a QB at 10. Hell, even with Taylor here, I'm still all-in on a QB at 10. I just don't think 900k difference is some sort of inefficient investment in RB depth when you're so dependent upon production from that position. Ending the drought for the sake of ending doesn't do much for me if we're likely to just bow out in round 1. "We can't take a QB because we need an impact player for this season" is just whatever. Get the QB, join the modern NFL.

I would not have paid Gillislee the $4 million, but I'd have absolutely offered the 2nd round tender. Part of this is I don't trust McCoy to be fully healthy--I expect a tweaked hamstring to limit him for a couple of games. And with how reliant we are on the run game, I think it makes some sense to have a higher tier backup.

I think I need a new...office. Yup, this whole thing is unsalvagable. I may have to change my vote to Dubas. Get the boy genius! My new GM power rankings: Dubas > Fenton = Brisebois.

Would do wonders for Jack in the defensive zone, that's for sure.

Brisebois should be an option in the poll.

I was not aware of this particular prediction. Holy smokes Liger! :lol: :p

I don't believe this is true. I don't think he has the awareness or vision for it.

Ennis is pathetic defensively. I don't think there's any precedent for a guy going from being as bad as he is to useful in a shutdown role. And halfway (or more) through his career? I'm calling no F'n way on that one.

Bawk! Bawk bawk bawk bawk!!!

Avatar bet on Ennis' point total if he's still here?

So your first instinct was to say we're complaining just because the article was negative, without ever reading the article? FWIW, stuff like this is why you get accused of trolling. I have a post in that very thread, without a psychedelic sphincter, showing Reinhart was as good or better than all of O'Reilly, Eichel, Kane, and Okposo, in every major statistical category.

Yea, I have no idea. He might crumble with more ice time. All I'm saying is he deserves a chance a hell of a lot more than Ennis does. Maybe. If we're going with a lineup where we stuff all the talent possible into two lines, then no. But if we're going with a lineup of balanced lines where each one has say two skill players and a role player, I think he definitely has the potential to be the role player in that formula. What we're paying Ennis shouldn't matter. The only thing that should matter is who produces on the ice. And right now, that sure as isn't Tyler Ennis.

Why not respond to the criticisms on the merits? Go ahead and defend Hamilton's article.

CF% GF% xGF% SCF% Carrier 50.55 48.73 52.35 55.57 Ennis 48.46 39.51 47.29 46.82 Can we, pretty please with a cherry on top, stop penciling in Ennis on the top line and treating Carrier like some also-ran AHL bum?

Perhaps not unlike a certain WGR beat reporter...